This house believes that creating green jobs is a sensible aspiration for governments.

Our sponsors provide financial support for this website. In the spirit of open debate, we invite them to offer their own perspective on the matter at hand. If they accept, they must declare any relationship or conflict of interest they have with the subject under discussion. They may not contact The Economist Group editorial staff once the debate begins, and they may not attempt to influence the moderation of the debate in any way. At all times, The Economist's editorial staff maintain full control of the debate's moderation.

Economist Debates adapt the Oxford style of debating to an online forum. The format was made famous by the 186-year-old Oxford Union and has been practised by heads of state, prominent intellectuals and galvanising figures from across the cultural spectrum. It revolves around an assertion that is defended on one side (the "proposer") and assailed on another (the "opposition") in a contest hosted and overseen by a moderator. Each side has three chances to persuade readers: opening, rebuttal and closing.

In Economist Debates, proposer and opposition each consist of a single speaker, experts in the issue at hand. We also invite featured guests to comment on the debate, not to take sides, but to provide context and informed perspective on the subject.

Those attending an Oxford-style debate participate in two ways: by voting to determine the debate's winner and by addressing comments to the moderator. The same holds here. As a reader, you are encouraged to vote. As long as the debate is open, you may change your vote as many times as you change your mind. And you are encouraged to air your own views by sending comments to the moderator. These should be relevant to the motion, the speakers' statements or the observations of featured guests. And they must be addressed directly to the moderator, who will single out the most compelling for discussion by the speakers.

Post-debate

What do you think?

62%

voted yes

38%

voted no

This debate has finished. Voting is now closed.

Voting at a glance

50%

42%

58%

43%

57%

54%

46%

61%

39%

62%

38%

62%

38%

61%

39%

62%

38%

62%

38%

62%

38%

DAY

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

Representing the sides

Yes

Van Jones

VAN JONES Author, "The Green-Collar Economy"

Van Jones is a globally recognized, award-winning pioneer in human rights and the clean-energy economy. He is a co-founder of three successful non-profit organisations: the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Color of Change and Green For All. He is the bestselling author of the definitive book on green jobs, "The Green-Collar Economy". He served as the green jobs adviser in the Obama White House in 2009. He is currently a senior fellow at the Center For American Progress. Additionally, he is a senior policy adviser at Green For All. He also holds a joint appointment at Princeton University, as a distinguished visiting fellow in both the Center for African American Studies and in the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Author, "The Green-Collar Economy"

The private sector—not the government—can and must be the main driver in creating green jobs. The scale of the transition to cleaner, lower-carbon energy sources is simply too large for the public sector to tackle alone.

ANDREW P. MORRISS H. Ross and Helen Workman Prof. of Law and Prof. of Business, University of Illinois College of Law

Andrew P. Morriss is the inaugural H. Ross and Helen Workman Professor of Law and Professor of Business at University of Illinois College of Law. He is also a Research Fellow of the NYU Center for Labor and Employment Law, a Senior Fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center, Bozeman, Montana; a Senior Scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University; and a regular visiting professor at Universidad Francisco Marroquín in Guatemala. Professor Morriss is a Senior Fellow for the Houston-based Institute for Energy Research (IER), which conducts historical research and evaluates public policies in the oil, gas, coal and electricity markets. He is the author or coauthor of over 50 book chapters and articles on environmental law, regulatory policy, and employment law as well as a coauthor (with Bruce Yandle and Andrew Dorchak) of Regulation by Litigation (Yale University Press, 2008) and coeditor (with Gerald Korngold) of Property Stories (Foundation Press, 2009).

H. Ross and Helen Workman Prof. of Law and Prof. of Business, University of Illinois College of Law

Governments should not try to choose technological winners and losers and so they should not promote "green" (or "red" or "purple") jobs. Instead, we should leave that to the marketplace.

Siemens AG (NYSE: SI) is a global powerhouse in electronics and electrical engineering, and operates in the industry, energy and healthcare sectors. For more than 160 years, Siemens has built a reputation for leading-edge innovation and the quality of its products, services and solutions. With 405,000 employees in 190 countries, Siemens reported worldwide revenue of $104.3 billion in fiscal 2009. With its U.S. corporate headquarters in New York City, Siemens in the USA reported revenue of $21.3 billion and employs approximately 64,000 people throughout all 50 states and Puerto Rico. For more information on Siemens in the United States, visit www.usa.siemens.com

About this debate

Fighting climate change means transforming the energy infrastructure; transforming such a huge infrastructure requires the labour of a great many people; new sources of employment are particularly appealing in a recession. Bringing together climate policy and employment policy seems to some to offer a double whammy, with more green jobs in a cleaner economy. But is this more than a cynical attempt to repackage climate measures that on their own do not appeal to voters and businesses by constraining business and distorting labour markets? Can the interests of labour, capital and the environment ever really come together?

Comments from the floor

Post-debate phase

Yet another debate that produces a clear winner by a majority large enough to dispel doubts as to how much people value the bigger issue of the environment.
As might be expected getting down to specifics is much harder.We're all unsure about the means, the costs, the uncertainties inherent to changes required of us to alter the development model we built and have become trapped in.
The debate has been helpful expanding diverging approaches to a common concern most basically show agreement on.
The lingering questions have to do with how to accomplish sensible goals.

Dear Sir, If all the green jobs are taxpayer subsidised where is the money coming from to pay for the jobs? The US is broke, most of the EU is broke, where is the money? China makes most of the worlds industrial equipment in the solar field and does the same for electronics including the critical rare earths parts for electrio cars. Nuclear, the only program which can pay for itself, is vilified by the eco people. Wind is stopped by NAMBY which leaves what?

After reading that recent article on natural gas here, I am surprised that natural gas wasn't mentioned in this debate. It's certainly an alternative worth consideration.

I also disagree with JoeSolar's statement that it was a public opinion poll. Mr. Morriss had the lead at the start, but Mr. Jones improved his case significantly after that. I am among those who changed my vote during the rebuttals. In all honesty, Mr. Jones made the better argument, so he deserved to win.

I vote yes. But it is very important to remember that pretty much all of the energy sectors are significantly subsidized. It is just more difficult to see in the oil and gas industry in the US because it is mainly done through the tax code. Since these very significant subsidies will never be undone (and this is an incredibly mature industry) it is more than fair to heavily subsidize green jobs - especially solar and wind power and weatherization. The free market in energy is mythical.